The Bergdahl deal: A test case for emptying Gitmo?

posted at 11:21 am on June 2, 2014 by Allahpundit

A smart take from Josh Rogin that helps explain not only why they did the deal but why they did it the way they did it.

There are now four different dubious angles, by the way, to the Bergdahl prisoner swap. One: Was Bergdahl captured against his will or did he desert? Two: Is his return worth the price of releasing five Taliban capos (actually four Taliban and one Haqqani), two of whom are wanted for war crimes? Three: If Bergdahl did desert, how many American soldiers’ deaths did he indirectly cause by doing so? (Tapper’s much-linked CNN piece this morning says six at least.) And four: Did Obama have the legal authority to make this trade? Rogin’s piece picks up on the last thread:

In his 2014 State of the Union address, Obama promised to shutter the prison built on Cuban soil by the end of the year. Obama now has seven months to fulfill his latest promise to shut down Guantanamo—or come as close to it as he can. During that time, Congress will be unable to prevent the release of the 149 prisoners still there.

“This whole deal may have been a test to see how far the administration can actually push it, and if Congress doesn’t fight back they will feel more empowered to move forward with additional transfers,” said one senior GOP senate aide close to the issue. “They’ve lined up all the dominoes to be able to move a lot more detainees out of Guantanamo and this could be just the beginning.”…

Now there’s growing concern on Capitol Hill that President Obama intends to bypass Congress to fulfill his promise to close the prison by releasing scores of more Guantanamo prisoners with little public or even private debate. Lawmakers and staffers see the Bergdahl case as only the latest maneuver in a larger plan to cut Congress out of the Guantanamo issue; and they’re not exactly reassured by senior administration officials’ refusal to disclose what steps will be taken to mitigate the risk that these prisoners could become involved again in the Afghan insurgency.

Of course, the Bergdahl case is a special one. Partially due to concern over Bergdahl’s fate, Congress actually gave up a significant amount of oversight of Guantanamo releases last December by passing a defense policy bill that eased the burden on the administration before releasing prisoners. Now, it’s just a simple Congressional notification. The law itself contains no enforcement measures and Obama even issued a signing statement at the time saying even the remaining restrictions violated his Constitutional prerogative.

The law says the White House needs to give Congress 30 days’ notice before releasing a prisoner from Gitmo — but since there’s no penalty if President Overreach fails to comply, go figure that he wouldn’t be a stickler about doing so. He learned that lesson years ago when he ignored the War Powers Act to intervene in Libya and Congress, true to form, did nothing about it but grumble. Naturally, if they let him get away with going to war in violation of federal law, he’d conclude that they won’t hassle him about a prisoner swap.

Or will they? BuzzFeed’s got a clip up of House Armed Services committee chairman Buck McKeon telling Fox News that he’s going to hold hearings on the Bergdahl transfer. That’s the point of Rogin’s piece — even if there are no meaningful legal restraints on Obama in emptying out Gitmo at this point, there are still potential political restraints if the GOP is willing to take up the four questions I raised above. (Actually, there’s a fifth question now that I think about it: Shouldn’t Karzai and the Afghans have had some say in this deal? They’re the ones who’ll have to live with the five degenerates we just handed over to Qatar.) If they aren’t, O might conclude that he’s got the green light to start releasing more detainees, albeit probably not until after election day so as to minimize the electoral fallout for Democrats. Much depends on Republicans’ appetite for tackling yet another Obama scandal this summer, when their plate’s already full with Benghazi and the VA and when they’re guaranteed lots of pushback in the form of fake liberal outrage that anyone would object to the return of an American soldier to his homeland and his parents. Obama figures, I think, that there’s no way the GOP’s going to go into table-pounding mode while the Bergdahls are doing teary interviews with Oprah about how they never gave up hope. Is he wrong?

Still, though: Why give up so much for Bergdahl, knowing the pain the White House will suffer if the desertion charges prove true and/or the Taliban Five end up back on the battlefield, blowing up American troops? My first hunch when I heard about the deal was that this was part of a new “feelgood” approach to foreign policy over the rest of Obama’s presidency to distract from the fact that he’s accomplished so little internationally. Hashtag activism, the kidnapped Nigerian girls, securing the return of the last American POW in Afghanistan — none of these are major strategic victories but they show the average voter that the White House’s heart is in the right place even if its head is up its ass. My hunch must be wrong, though, just because there’s too much political peril in the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl’s disappearance and release. You wouldn’t pick this as a slam-dunk “feelgood” gesture with big-time reporters like Tapper wondering if this guy went AWOL. So what’s the White House’s real motive, then? I think it’s all about building goodwill with the Taliban in hopes of restarting peace talks. Obama wants out of Afghanistan but he wants at least some cosmetic promises from the enemy that they’ll respect the new government, let girls go to school, etc, so that withdrawal looks like less of a capitulation. Handing over the Taliban Five might jump-start something. The biggest foreign-policy “achievement” of his second term is the phony nuclear rapprochement with Iran, which he’s touting as a success. Go figure that he might try something similar with the Taliban.

In lieu of an exit question, take some time to read three different accounts from veterans who served (or claim to have served) at the same time as Bergdahl and are skeptical that he was taken against his will. Ed already linked this one by Nathan Bradley Bethea, but if you missed them this weekend, make sure you read the ones from “CodyFNfootball” and “Raven-Wolf” too. Think Oprah will be interviewing them?

Update: Let’s add a sixth question for those House hearings to explore.

Former Sr Defense official on #Bergdahl platoon mates being asked to sign NDAs: "Highly unusual."

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Now there’s growing concern on Capitol Hill that President Obama intends to bypass Congress to fulfill his promise to close the prison by releasing scores of more Guantanamo prisoners with little public or even private debate.

Uh, correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t releasing a bunch of suspected(if not confirmed) terrorists and murderers not exactly play well politically with the country at large? I thought the original idea by the regime was not to release everybody from Gitmo, but to transfer the prisoners to other detention facilities. The problem Obama ran into was that no one wanted them, especially at prisons within the US.

BuzzFeed’s got a clip up of House Armed Services committee chairman Buck McKeon telling Fox News that he’s going to hold hearings on the Bergdahl transfer.

To be portrayed by the Fascist-Democrats as “more GOP obstructionism, as they are hostile to anything Dear Liar does. They won’t credit him with making a difficult decision and a hard choice that results in the freeing of an American soldier.”

I think it’s all about building goodwill with the Taliban in hopes of restarting peace talks. Obama wants out of Afghanistan but he wants at least some cosmetic promises from the enemy that they’ll respect the new government, let girls go to school, etc, so that withdrawal looks like less of a capitulation.

This isn’t a bad take, but really, I think he simply wants to close Gitmo so he can do a victory lap in front of the cameras. I rather doubt there’s any more strategic thinking here involved than that.

In 2008, Obama claimed that it was evil to keep Gitmo open. After taking office, he realized that it wasn’t so simple to close it. Being a liberal means that you can make all the irresponsible/unrealistic campaign promises that you want.

And since all the orange jump-suit protestors disappeared, Obama wasn’t under any pressure to release anyone. The protestors never cared about anyone at Gitmo. They just hated the fact that a Republican was President.

How exactly is releasing 5 of the most fanatical terrorists in the world and bending over for the Taliban, “a case for emptying Gitmo”?

Cruz was exactly right, if we wanted to rescue the soldier, we should have found out where he was being held and send a special forces team in to get him. All while killing the bastards that held him there.

All this and Talibama won’t lift a finger to get the marine released from prison in Mexico.

What a pathetic, infuriating joke of a government we now have. Talibama should be removed from office and tried for treason.

Hahaha! I think it’s cute that the chattering class is considering what could happen to Obama over this. NEWS FLASH: Nothing will.

gryphon202 on June 2, 2014 at 11:26 AM

If you mean impeachment, then it’s doubtful. The GOP has no stones for that. But politically, the Dems could be destroyed over this, especially on the heels of the VA scandal. To allow veterans to die by denying them health care(and covering it up) and then to go and release a bunch of terrorists from Gitmo. Why not just go on TV, give the middle finger, and tell every man and woman in uniform(and their families) to go F themselves?

The Iran hostage crisis, referred to in Persian as تسخیر لانه جاسوسی امریکا (literally “Conquest of the American Spy Den,”), was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States. Fifty-two American diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days (November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981), after a group of Iranian students, belonging to the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line, who were supporting the Iranian Revolution took over the US Embassy in Tehran.[1] President Jimmy Carter called the hostages “victims of terrorism and anarchy,” adding that “the United States will not yield to blackmail.”

What did the terrorists want?

The Shah.

That’s right. Jimmy Carter could have returned the Shah to Iran and the Iranian terrorists would have released our 52 Americans…

…But, unlike Barack Obama, Carter refused to negotiate with terrorists and yield to their blackmail because he knew that it would have only resulted in more hostage-taking.

The law says the White House needs to give Congress 30 days’ notice before releasing a prisoner from Gitmo — but since there’s no penalty if President Overreach fails to comply,

One question, one statement. Exactly what kind of penalty can Congress inflect on The Won, short of impeachment, which isn’t going to happen. And my statement is that this little rule was hatched up between both sides. So there will be lots of whining and no action. Gee, that’s different.

Cruz was exactly right, if we wanted to rescue the soldier, we should have found out where he was being held and send a special forces team in to get him. All while killing the bastards that held him there.All this and Talibama won’t lift a finger to get the marine released from prison in Mexico.
What a pathetic, infuriating joke of a government we now have. Talibama should be removed from office and tried for treason.
Meople on June 2, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Great point. Maybe you could be a citizen journalist appointed to the WH and ask them about this conflict of interest? It seems the “pros” don’t care to ask the obvious questions and connect the dots.

And what happened to Special Ops? Surely, they could’ve found this traitor.

When the rest of the Jihad is released from Gitmo they will be outfitted with all the latest war gadgets that were developed.They have been out of circuit so an upgrade is warranted.Can’t send them back to kill Americans without the latest greatest stuff.

How exactly is releasing 5 of the most fanatical terrorists in the world and bending over for the Taliban, “a case for emptying Gitmo”?

Meople on June 2, 2014 at 11:30 AM

I think Allahpundit means that the Obama administration might have done this deal as a way to test Americans’ reactions to Gitmo prisoner releases. The exchange gives them a reason to do a release. If nobody squealed, then they might be brave enough to do more releases.

Obama figures, I think, that there’s no way the GOP’s going to go into table-pounding mode while the Bergdahls are doing teary interviews with Oprah about how they never gave up hope. Is he wrong?

I don’t think the public is going to have much sympathy for Ma and Pa Bergdahl, especially after they hear about Pa’s anti-American, terrorist-sympathizing tweets, or junior’s “I’m ashamed to be an American, and I want out of this horrible, stupid Army” e-mails.

When even CNN is reporting that Bergdahl appears to be a deserter, the official narrative of him as brave soldier/deserving POW gets harder to maintain.

If there is an ounce of truth to this theory, Bergdahl is becoming a footnote. In order to close Guantanamo by the end of the year, he cannot wait until after the elections to release another batch. He is out of hostages to trade, or is he?

I still don’t see an end game that isn’t a disaster for his entire party.

Obama’s playing a very dangerous game here, and Congress needs to do its job and assert some oversight. He’s not god or king, and the fact he ran roughshod over a law JUST PASSED in order to let these animals loose is something he needs to be held accountable for. If not now, when? After these terrorists have killed more Americans on the battlefield, or perhaps here at home? Will that be what it takes for them to do more than just pay lip service to the very idea of oversight?

Allahpundit: could there be any connection to this trade and the CIA chief who was “accidentally” outed in Afghanistan???

conservative pilgrim on June 2, 2014 at 11:42 AM

With this Regime, there are NO coincidences. There are NO accidental “screw ups”. They are 100% politics 100% of the time. That’s all they think about. That’s all they care about.

Look at the Benghazi cover-up. We don’t know a fraction of what really happened with that. Rumor has it that the White House was working with the CIA to create the video in the first place, well ahead of 9/11/12, all so they could use it for their cover up.

Of course this leads to the White House, knowing what was going to go down in Benghazi well in advance, and the WH actively working WITH Al Qaeda to kill the Ambassador.

Suddenly, the little question as to where Talibama was when all this went down becomes much more clear. Plausible deniability.

If they aren’t, O might conclude that he’s got the green light to start releasing more detainees, albeit probably not until after election day so as to minimize the electoral fallout for Democrats.

One problem with that, what country is going to take them? He may have got Qatar to take these five for a year but that’s a far cry from 150 terrorists. I’m sure there’s Islamic countries that wouldn’t mind taking them but even they got to play the international PR game.

Obama’s playing a very dangerous game here, and Congress needs to do its job and assert some oversight. He’s not god or king, and the fact he ran roughshod over a law JUST PASSED in order to let these animals loose is something he needs to be held accountable for. If not now, when? After these terrorists have killed more Americans on the battlefield, or perhaps here at home? Will that be what it takes for them to do more than just pay lip service to the very idea of oversight?

changer1701 on June 2, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Congress can’t do anything. Only thing dangerous here is Bush setting up Guantanamo.

I think Allahpundit means that the Obama administration might have done this deal as a way to test Americans’ reactions to Gitmo prisoner releases. The exchange gives them a reason to do a release. If nobody squealed, then they might be brave enough to do more releases.

blink on June 2, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Ah, k, that could be. Poor choice of words there maybe. Could have been a trial balloon I agree.

I think they’ll do more releases anyway. They know the GOP isn’t going to do a d@mn thing to stop them.

I think you guys are digging too dip there. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”, remember? Obama saw an opportunity to help a couple of his militant brothers, and he helped them. He’d rather have less attention on the deal, but given how much spine the Republican opposition has demonstrated so far and how deep the media is up Obama’s behind, the fallout risk was deemed minimal.

The rat-eared wonder empties Gitmo and then spends the next Presidential administration talking about the terrorist problems that he kept under control when HE was president. Sorta like Bill Clinton taking credit for the response after the 9/11/01 atrocities because he built up the military or something.

The rat-eared wonder empties Gitmo and then spends the next Presidential administration talking about the terrorist problems that he kept under control when HE was president. Sorta like Bill Clinton taking credit for the response after the 9/11/01 atrocities because he built up the military or something.

The guy’s a prisoner for five years, but suddenly his situation is so tenuous Obama didn’t have any time to notify Congress as required by law before releasing five dangerous terrorists in return for one deserter?

We “leave no man behind” but we leave four Americans to die in Benghazi?

As narcissists do when their fantasy world comes a cropper leaping over reality, Obama is stubbornly refusing to acknowledge reality and shrinking back into his supportive bubble. He is going to be less and less restrained by reality, the law, and public opinion, instead being guided only by what his enablers think and his desires for his “legacy”.

He is going to do as he wants unless he is forcibly stopped. Emptying Gitmo, crushing the economy even further with EPA regs, flooding the nation with illegals and effectively legalizing as many as possible, stacking the federal judiciary with leftist ideologues, building up his massive “civilian army” at Homeland and by adding militarized “police” units to every federal bureaucracy, and whatever else he can imagine that advances his goals, particularly his goal of glorifying himself as the Progressive Messiah.

He’s giving signs of being too impatient even to wait until after the elections in November, after which he will well and truly be off the leash.

Congress can’t do anything. Only thing dangerous here is Bush setting up Guantanamo.

No libertarian should be supporting Guantanamo

weedisgood on June 2, 2014 at 12:05 PM

You sound like Obama circa 2008 – before reality hit him hard between the eyes.

Yes, libertarians should be supporting execution by air strike rather than detainment. I certainly may have played this differently, if I had been in the White House, but I’m not ignorant enough to pretend that it’s a simple as you make it out to be, Dude.

Of course this whole incident was less about Bergdahl and more about closing Gitmo. Begdahl was nothing more than an attempt to cover for releasing prisoners, that is now blowing up in the face of Obama.

Of course this whole incident was less about Bergdahl and more about closing Gitmo. Begdahl was nothing more than an attempt to cover for releasing prisoners, that is now blowing up in the face of Obama.

Tater Salad on June 2, 2014 at 1:09 PM

This man let an Ambassador die (THAT HE HAD APPOINTED!) because he calculated that the political cost of doing so a better risk than trying a rescue.

I have no doubt that he’s HOPING more prisoners are taken so he can exchange the rest of the filth at Gitmo for them.

The guy’s a prisoner for five years, but suddenly his situation is so tenuous Obama didn’t have any time to notify Congress as required by law before releasing five dangerous terrorists in return for one deserter?

novaculus on June 2, 2014 at 12:40 PM

The Bergdahls offered their son up for jihad. They were working with this administration, and every bit of this was planned and timed. Obama was held to his campaign promises by the radical antiwar left.

This news was timed with Memorial Day, (the Veterans scandal). They decided to dump everything at once. Shinseki and Carney retired on the same Friday. After the weekend, they announce this deal.

And yes, the plan is to empty Gitmo and end Afghanistan as part of Obama’s legacy. They’ll never shut up about OBL, either. This means the GOP can no longer run on national security in presidential years.

The very same Gitmo that Zero was supposed to close down within one year of his taking office (roughly, 1/21/2010)? The very same Gitmo that was so very much being used as a recruitment tool by our enemies and was, by its very existence, putting an even larger target on our troops’ backs? Yet, he allowed such a dangerous enemy propaganda tool to continue and threaten our military personnel, for what will be almost 5 extra years? Call me crazy but this is clearly not a serious man.

Does anyone really think Gitmo will no longer be used as enemy propaganda? Like, one day, some terrorist faction nutbag is gonna be all like, “Hey, man, that was, like, 2 years ago, dude!” or “What difference, at this point, does it make?!”. LMFAO

I am sure that Sgt (????) Bergdahl is wearing his beard proudly as is mandated by Islamic training. If he was a dedicated G.I. he would have been able to find a razor between his release and being put on display by the President.